Constitutional convention over this?!

[cuchulainn]

Beware chickenlittleitis, folks.

A bunch of guys "discussed the possibility" of a convention. Note that they didn't actually call for a convention -- they "discussed the possibility" -- and even if they had called for it, that wouldn't mean it would occur. Any fool can say, "By golly, we oughta have us a constitutional convention!"

I think that if you look at the history of failed constitutional amendments, that you'll see a bunch instances of the losers "discussing the possibility" of a convention. We haven't had one yet ... and we won't this time.

Frankly, we're more likely to see SCOTUS accept a clear 2nd Amt case than see a constitutional convention.

That said: there are some interesting hypothetical and speculative points being made.

 

[benEzra]

once a constitutional convention is called there are NO limits on what can happen. the only hold back is the new constitution has to be ratified.

everything would be up for grabs and if some of the shenanigans that accompanied the income tax amendment are an example life could get very interesting.

It's also important to point out that any "new constitution" could contain ITS OWN rules for ratification. As in, "this document shall become the law of the land if it is ratified by popular referendum in 26 states."

Don't forget that when the original Constitutional convention was called, the Articles of Confederation (the old constitution) said that changes had to be approved unanimously. The new constitutional convention ignored the ratification requirements extant in the old one, and substituted its own (3/4 of state legislatures, as I recall). There's nothing to stop that from happening again.

 

[k_semler]

So, what would happen if 50.1% of the states adopted a new constitution that just said "the government can do whatever it desires, this document shall be the supreme law of the land should it be adopted by a simple majority of the states." but 49.9% of the states refused to adopt it under any circumstance?

 

[Art Eatman]

My own belief about a "new constitution" is that there would be no real restraints on government power, and no real rights for the citizenry. Just read the "constitution" of the European Union. Sounds good, but every citizen "right" is subject to government control. It's all privileges.

Art

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

I disagree

First, the argument that "there are more important issues" is not an argument. We are a complex society with the best system of government. We CAN walk and chew gum at the same time. I heard someone on the radio just today say the same thing about the war in Iraq....."there are more important issues".......He then mentioned health care programs. As if we can't handle both? As mentioned earlier, if they ARE spending their time on it...they aren't using their time messing things up.
Also, it IS an important issue. If activist courts continue "writing" the law, there is NO law that can be written to remedy the situtation......EXCEPT a Constitutional Amendment. I don't WANT an amendment....but the activist courts are forcing the issue. Whether or not you believe in the sanctity of marriage & whether it is worthy of protecting is an argument for another day....& many more words than I am willing to write today.

Second, churches do not sacrifice their right to take a stand on morals, principles or laws. Our laws are based in moral principles. Lobbying for various programs or $$$ distribution policies is one thing....but taking a stand on marriage, pornography, etc...is surely their right. If it was a clear violation of 501c3 status, don't you think it would have been pursued by groups other than internet bloggers?

*This is not to say that I support a constitutional convention.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Also, it IS an important issue. If activist courts continue "writing" the law, there is NO law that can be written to remedy the situtation......EXCEPT a Constitutional Amendment. I don't WANT an amendment....but the activist courts are forcing the issue.

So, eh Nimrod....You do know that the US Constitution is limiting the powers of the Government, and not for limiting the rights and freedoms of the citizens, right?

BTW, why is marriage a government issue anyway. The churches are the ones throwing a fit over it, so let them deny who gets married under their roof. If the government wants to help out couples, then they should start issuing couple permits and stay the freak out of religious issues.

 

[Sam Adams]

1. On the issue of an Amendment restricting marriage to being between one man and one woman, I'm for it for the following reason: the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV, Section 1), which states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

This means that a marriage in one state MUST be recognized in all of the other states. So if some Massachusetts judge says that homosexual marriage is OK up there, then Texas must recognize that. This is an insane result, even forgetting the morality of it. You could have people with AIDS getting married to others with great medical coverage through their employers, just to get insurance (at everyone else's expense), people getting "married" just to get the Social Security of others, etc. The cost would be enormous, and quite contrary to the intent of such provisions in the law for the traditionally-married (which is to prevent real families from being destitute, etc.).

Really, for me, it is a matter of the proposed Amendment protecting the people of one state from the actions of the people (or worse, judges) in another.

2. As to the ConCon: I am 110% against it. Yes, it doesn't appear likely now, but such talk should be nipped in the bud ASAP every time it is brought up as a possible solution to an issue. As others have pointed out, once such a convention was convened, every aspect of the existing Constitution would be up for debate. I am certain that there would be no 2nd Amendment as we now know it - our firearms rights would be severely constrained and would, in fact, not be rights any more. Our ability to obtain, keep and use firearms would depend on the approval of the government (for a nice hefty fee, of course).

Stay away from an Constitutional Convention at all costs.

As to what would happen if a new, or substantially changed, Constitution emerged that was opposed by a significant number of states and people...I believe that a careful review of the 1861-1865 period would offer some clues.

 

[Northslope Nimrod]

Sam Adams....well said. The Full Faith & Credit Clause is both the legal problem and the practical problem. I didn't want to make my post too lengthy but you summed it up well. Again, it is not the conservatives pressing the issue....it is the liberal courts.

 

[RealGun]

BTW, why is marriage a government issue anyway.

Civil union certainly is. Churches will require a marriage license. But one doesn't need the church to get married.

There are all sorts of laws that address couples and their issues with each other. Their household economics are also acknowledged by the tax code, unfairly taxing other cohabitants with similar economics.

The real question is how do district courts find jurisdiction in these cases. It may seem compelling under the circumstances, but I have no idea how they find it in the Constitution or the statutes. I think the answer is they make stuff up as they go along and are not challenged by Congress. The way it works is that they are all lawyers, certainly the majority. Gives one a warm feeling.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Hey guys, as a side note here...all these threads that talk about "when will the day be..." or "when will you resist..." etc...can be finally answered. We've all concluded that there won't be any all-out gun ban and confiscation. We all agree it is an incremental approach.


Pretty much the only thing that I can image that would cause a real, serious, civil/revolutionary war here in America, where people take up arms...would be a Constitutional convention. Because any CC would automatically produce results unpalatable for any American who has any clue as to what freedom is. I agree with the others in that all Rights will be erased and turned into privileges. Socialism will be codified into the constitution as well as other things that shouldn't be there. But forget the economics for a sec...there are 2 main reasons why it would be a disaster:

1] When our Constitution was ratified, our society and the nation was very homogenous in political beliefs compared to today. Democracy only works between 2-like minded sides. It does not work between 2 sides who are complete polar opposites who hate each other and despise the other's policies. That is majority rule tyranny. Which is what we have today, and the end result is a non-functioning compromise. When our Constitution was ratified, there was massive dissent and disagreement on a number of issues and compromises were made, these differences are nothing compared to the differences today. And, even if one side could win out in convincing the other - NEITHER side truly defends liberty or understands it (sees it) like the founders did.

2] Everything is different today. The demands of society are not compatible with individual liberty. The entire political leadership structure is full of people who do not truly respect or understand liberty like the founders did. Just look at the Constitutions that our government has helped author for other nations. All Rights are subject to government control, so nothing is inalienable - and thus, there's no limit to regulating them, so they are basically meaningless. You can't help but think that the Constitutional ideas and what our government imposes on others is what they'd really like to have here. We do have that here in a way, by the sheer number of massive laws that basically abrogates the Constitution. However, I do not put it past them to put this modern view in stone - in the Constitution. Laws are difficult enough to get rid of, Constitutional changes are nearly impossible.


Of all the things we've ever speculated about, about potentially initiating or instigating armed revolution....nothing has been convincing to me, except for the idea of a CC in our modern day. Star Wars bar scene? You're not kidding!


You know what I say? If it ain't broke - don't fix it.

 

[Group9]

I would say, that if you think you, or anyone you know of, is half as intelligent as the people who wrote our last constitution, then go for it.

I, for one, have no illusions about being smart enough to write something as brilliant as the Constitution, and the system of government we have that it set out.

Obviously, especially on this site, there are a lot of people who think they are that smart.

 

[Byron Quick]

another group (gay marriage) finding federal judges that are willing to say that gay marriage is a fundamental right.

SteveS,

What federal courts have ruled so? I am aware of state courts that have done so and as has been mentioned, this brings up difficulties nationwide under the Full Faith and Credit article.

The intelligence amongst our people is not the problem with having a Constitutional Convention. Lack of comparable education is the problem. The people who wrangle and developed the Constitution would consider most Phds to be illiterates outside of narrow technical fields and would consider our political science Phds to be illiterates within their field.

Also review the writings of the opponents of ratification of the Constitution. Those who felt that it was an instrument dangerous to liberty. Some of their fears have come to pass.

Also, examine the assumptions you hold...often subconsciously. The oft heard statement that the US has the best government in history. Best=good...right? Not necessarily. I agree that we have the best government in history. With one caveat...the best of a bad lot.

There is only one good and reasonable defense of a democratic republic as a form of government...considering the alternatives.